Recently, in a case testing the scope of statutory protections for employees acquiring disabilities during service, the Himachal Pradesh High Court examined whether the enhanced retirement age under an Office Memorandum for persons with benchmark disabilities could be denied solely because the disability arose post-appointment. The proceedings raised pivotal questions on equality, non-discrimination, and the legislative mandate under the disability rights regime. Read on to learn how the Court addressed these issues in light of statutory provisions and judicial precedent.
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed from the petitioner's retirement as District Ayurvedic Officer at the age of 58 years, without the benefit of extension up to 60 years under the Office Memorandum (OM), which enhanced retirement age for persons with disabilities. The petitioner, appointed as Ayurvedic Medical Officer in March 1982 and later promoted, acquired 51% permanent locomotor disability during service, as certified by the Medical Board. He contended that as a disabled person, he was entitled to the extension, but the respondents denied it, leading him to approach the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that he acquired 51% permanent locomotor disability during service, qualifying him as a person with benchmark disability under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and thus entitled to the retirement age extension up to 60 years under the OM, which was in force at his retirement. He argued that denying this benefit discriminated against him merely because the disability arose during service, not at entry, violating the Act's non-discrimination provisions.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents contended that the petitioner was neither inducted into service as a person with physical disability nor appointed to a post reserved for physically challenged persons, and having acquired the disability during service, he was not entitled to the benefit of the OM extending retirement age for persons with physical disabilities who had been inducted as such.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that the central issue was whether the extension of retirement age for persons with benchmark disabilities under the OM could be denied to the petitioner on the grounds that his disability arose during service and not at entry against a handicapped quota. Tracing the OM's history, the court noted its initial application to blind employees was challenged and extended to other disabilities, including hearing impairment, in cases like Krishan Chand Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., upheld by higher courts, emphasizing parity among disabilities defined under Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
The Court held that while the withdrawal of the Office Memorandum (OM) was valid, and the benefits already accrued to the petitioner would remain protected. Referring to Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which prohibit dispensing with or reducing in rank an employee who acquires a disability during service, it was found that retiring the petitioner at 58 amounted to a discriminatory termination. The Court observed, while rejecting the respondent’s distinction, “Petitioner, who acquired permanent disability during service cannot be discriminated vis-à-vis others whose disabilities existed at the time of entry into service, for the purpose of applying Office Memorandum dated 29.03.2013.”
While referring to the case of Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. and Mahender Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., where similar extensions were granted to those acquiring disability in service, the court emphasised that "the disability will not cease to be disability just because person suffered it during service and not prior to the appointment." It further observed that no valid classification existed under the OM or the Act to differentiate based on when disability was acquired, as "a person, who acquired disability during service is as disabled as the person who was disabled prior to joining the service." The court further noted the Act's mandate for equal opportunities, including career progression, without stagnation for persons with disabilities.
Case Title: Dr. Daljit Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
Case No: CWP No. 3374/2024
Coram: Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Virbahadur Verma
Advocate for Respondent: AAG Y.P.S. Dhaulta
